RAJENDRA GUPTA V. DEPUTY COMMI OF INCOME TAX ANR

CW/8699/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Gupta Trademart Pvt Ltd and its director, Rajendra Gupta, who filed writ petitions challenging the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The petitions contested the Commission's decision, which had not accepted the full and true disclosure of income made by the petitioners and had proceeded to make an assessment. The court examined whether the Settlement Commission had the jurisdiction to make such an assessment and whether it had followed the correct procedural steps, including giving an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the findings and waiting for the FSL report on disputed documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750561 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kakadia Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner, Ajmera Housing Corporation Vs. CIT, ACE Investments Ltd. Vs. Settlement Commission, Canara Jewellers Vs. Settlement Commission, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emta Coal Limited, CIT Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd., P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of MP, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Kan Singh Parihar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., Brij Lal Vs. CIT, Abdul Rahim Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL MEHTA; SIDDHARTH BAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHI SRIVASTAVA; BHRIGU SHARMA
• Keywords: Assessment; Full and True Disclosure; Income tax settlement commission; Jurisdiction; Rectification; Settlement application
• Section: 245C(1); 245D(4); 245D(1); 245D(3); 245D(6B); 245D(6); 245D(2B)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8677/2014 Gupta Trademart Pvt Ltd, C-46, Opp. Laxminarayan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, Distt.- Ajmer. Rajasthan through its Director Sh. Rajendra Gupta S/o late Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged 49 years R/o Opp. Laxminarayan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, Distt.- Ajmer. Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Department, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Income Tax Department, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8699/2014 Rajendra Gupta S/o late Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged 49 years R/o Opp. Laxminarayan Temple, Ajmer Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh, Distt.- Ajmer. Rajasthan-305801 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sakshi Srivastava, Adv. with Mr. Bhrigu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order Reserved on 06/08/2021 Pronounced on 25/08/2021 (2 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] 1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission while exercising the powers under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, IT Act) as also the orders dated 18/06/2014 & 21/02/2014 respectively passed under Section 245D(6B) of the IT Act. 2. The petitioner-company which is a private limited company has filed the first writ petition while Mr. Rajendra Gupta, who is Managing Director of the petitioner-company, has also filed separately the second writ petition. 3. Both the petitioners by way of these writ petitions have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission while exercising the powers under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act whereby the settlement application filed by the petitioners was disposed of. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present writ petitions, it would be apposite to quote the relevant provisions relating to settlement of cases as provided under Chapter XIX of the IT Act which are as under:- \"245C. [(1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the [Assessing Officer], the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: [Provided that no such application shall be made unless,— (3 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] (i) in a case where proceedings for assessment or reassessment for any of the assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B in case of a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C have been initiated, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds fifty lakh rupees, [(ia) in a case where— (A) the applicant is related to the person referred to in clause (i) who has filed an application (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as ―specified person); and (B) the proceedings for assessment or re-assessment for any of the assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B in case of the applicant, being a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C, have been initiated, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees,] (ii) in any other case, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees, and such tax and the interest thereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been paid on or before the date of making the application and the proof of such payment is attached with the application.] [Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (ia),— (a) the applicant, in relation to the specified person referred to in clause (ia), means,— (i) where the specified person is an individual, any relative of the specified person; (ii) where the specified person is a company, firm, association of persons or Hindu undivided family, any director of the company, partner of the firm, or member of the association or family, or any relative of such director, partner or member; (iii) any individual who has a substantial interest in the business or profession of the specified person, or any relative of such individual; (iv) a company, firm, association of persons or Hindu undivided family having a substantial interest in the (4 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] business or profession of the specified person or any director, partner or member of such company, firm, association or family, or any relative of such director, partner or member; (v) a company, firm, association of persons or Hindu undivided family of which a director, partner or member, as the case may be, has a substantial interest in the business or profession of the specified person; or any director, partner or member of such company, firm, association or family or any relative of such director, partner or member; (vi) any person who carries on a business or profession,— (A) where the specified person being an individual, or any relative of such specified person, has a substantial interest in the business or profession of that person; or (B) where the specified person being a company, firm, association of persons or Hindu undivided family, or any director of such company, partner of such firm or member of the association or family, or any relative of such director, partner or member, has a substantial interest in the business or profession of that person; (b) a person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a business or profession, if— (A) in a case where the business or profession is carried on by a company, such person is, [on the date of search], the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, whether with or without a right to participate in profits) carrying not less than twenty per cent of the voting power; and (B) in any other case, such person is, [on the date of search], beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent of the profits of such business or profession.] (1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of this section 2 [***], the additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed in an application made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1B) to (1D). [(1B) Where the income disclosed in the application relates to only one previous year,— (i) if the applicant has not furnished a return in respect of the total income of that year, then, tax (5 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] shall be calculated on the income disclosed in the application as if such income were the total income; (ii) if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of the total income of that year, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income returned and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income.] [(1C) The additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed in the application relating to the previous year referred to in sub- section (1B) shall be,— (a) in a case referred to in clause (i) of that sub- section, the amount of tax calculated under that clause; (b) in a case referred to in clause (ii) of that sub- section, the amount of tax calculated under that clause as reduced by the amount of tax calculated on the total income returned for that year; (c) * * * * * (1D) Where the income disclosed in the application relates to more than one previous year, the additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed for each of the years shall first be calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1B) and (1C) and the aggregate of the amount so arrived at in respect of each of the years for which the application has been made under sub-section (1) shall be the additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed in the application. (1E) * * * * * (2) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. (3) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant. [(4) An assessee shall, on the date on which he makes an application under sub-section (1) to the Settlement Commission, also intimate the Assessing Officer in the prescribed manner of having made such application to the said Commission.] [(5) No application shall be made under this section on or after the 1st day of February, 2021] Procedure on receipt of an application under section 245C.— 245D. [(1) On receipt of an application under section 245C, the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the (6 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] application, issue a notice to the applicant requiring him to explain as to why the application made by him be allowed to be proceeded with, and on hearing the applicant, the Settlement Commission shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the application, by an order in writing, reject the application or allow the application to be proceeded with: Provided that where no order has been passed within the aforesaid period by the Settlement Commission, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with.] (1A) [Omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1991 (2) A copy of every order under sub-section (1) shall be sent to the applicant and to the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]. [(2A) Where an application was made under section 245C before the 1st day of June, 2007, but an order under the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, has not been made before the 1st day of June, 2007, such application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with if the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon is paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007. Explanation.—In respect of the applications referred to in this sub-section, the 31st day of July, 2007 shall be deemed to be the date of the order of rejection or allowing the application to be proceeded with under sub-section (1). (2B) The Settlement Commission shall,— (i) in respect of an application which is allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (1), within thirty days from the date on which the application was made; or (ii) in respect of an application referred to in sub- section (2A) which is deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with under that sub-section, on or before the 7th day of August, 2007, call for a report from the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], and the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] shall furnish the report within a period of thirty days of the receipt of communication from the Settlement Commission. (2C) Where a report of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] called for under sub-section (2B) has been furnished within the period specified (7 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] therein, the Settlement Commission may, on the basis of the report and within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the report, by an order in writing, declare the application in question as invalid, and shall send the copy of such order to the applicant and the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]: Provided that an application shall not be declared invalid unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard: Provided further that where the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] has not furnished the report within the aforesaid period, the Settlement Commission shall proceed further in the matter without the report of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]. [Provided alsothat where in respect of an application, an order, which was required to be passed under this sub-section on or before the 31st day of January, 2021, has not been passed on or before the 31st day of January, 2021, such application shall deemed to be valid] (2D) Where an application was made under sub- section (1) of section 245C before the 1st day of June, 2007 and an order under the provisions of sub- section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, allowing the application to have been proceeded with, has been passed before the 1st day of June, 2007, but an order under the provisions of sub- section (4), as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, was not passed before the 1st day of June, 2007, such application shall not be allowed to be further proceeded with unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time already granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007.] [(3) The Settlement Commission, in respect of— (i) an application which has not been declared invalid under sub-section (2C); or (ii) an application referred to in sub-section (2D) which has been allowed to be further proceeded with under that sub-section, may call for the records from the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] and after examination of such records, if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry (8 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case, and the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] shall furnish the report within a period of ninety days of the receipt of communication from the Settlement Commission: Provided that where the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] does not furnish the report within the aforesaid period, the Settlement Commission may proceed to pass an order under sub-section (4) without such report. (4) After examination of the records and the report of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], if any, received under— (i) sub-section (2B) or sub-section (3), or (ii) the provisions of sub-section (1) as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]. (4A) The Settlement Commission shall pass an order under sub-section (4),— (i) in respect of an application referred to in sub- section (2A) or sub-section (2D), on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in respect of an application made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 [but before the 1st day of June, 2010], within twelve months from the end of the month in which the application was made;] [(iii) in respect of an application made on or after the 1st day of June, 2010, within eighteen months from the end of the month in which the application was made.] [(5) Subject to the provisions of section 245BA, the materials brought on record before the Settlement Commission shall be considered by the Members of (9 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] the concerned Bench before passing any order under sub-section (4) and, in relation to the passing of such order, the provisions of section 245BD shall apply.] (6) Every order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of [tax, penalty or interest], the manner in which any sum due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective and shall also provide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. [(6A) Where any tax payable in pursuance of an order under sub-section (4) is not paid by the assessee within thirty-five days of the receipt of a copy of the order by him, then, whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of such tax or has allowed payment thereof by instalments, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at [one and one-fourth per cent. for every month or part of a month] on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days aforesaid.] [(6B) The Settlement Commission may, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed [***] under sub-section (4) — (a) at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed; or (b) at any time within the period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be: Provided that no application for rectification shall be made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which an order under sub-section (4) is passed by the Settlement Commission: Provided further that an amendment which has the effect of modifying the liability of the applicant shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Settlement Commission has given notice to the applicant and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of its intention to do so and has (10 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] allowed the applicant and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner an opportunity of being heard.] (7) Where a settlement becomes void as provided under sub-section (6), the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission and the income- tax authority concerned, may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, complete such proceedings at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the settlement became void. [(8) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in section 153 shall apply to any order passed under sub-section (4) or to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation required to be made by the [Assessing Officer] in pursuance of any directions contained in such order passed by the Settlement Commission [and nothing contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 186 shall apply to the cancellation of the registration of a firm required to be made in pursuance of any such directions as aforesaid.]\" 6. Brief facts of the case as noticed are that on 09/09/2010, the petitioner and its director Rajendra Gupta (petitioner in CWP No.8699/2014) were subjected to search and seizure under Section 132 of the IT Act and were served with consequential notices issued under Section 153A of the IT Act for initiating assessment proceedings in case of search. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission and filed application under Section 245C(1) of the IT Act in the prescribed form seeking settlement of their cases on 29/06/2012 for the period AY 2007-08 to 2012-13 making true and full disclosure of income not disclosed before the Assessing Officer alongwith the manner in which such income has been derived and additional amount of Income Tax payable thereon for the period specified therein. The Settlement Commission upon being satisfied that the petitioner (11 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] has fulfilled the condition precedent under Section 245A, 245C and 245D(1) of the IT Act allowed the Settlement Application to be proceeded with by passing order under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act. Further, as per Section 245D(2B) of the IT Act, the respondent No.2 furnished its report wherein objection as to the validity of the Settlement Application of the petitioner was made on the ground of non-making of true and full disclosure of income. However, the Settlement Commission after considering the report passed an order under Section 245D(2C) of the IT Act declaring the application to be valid and accordingly proceeded further with the application. Subsequent to passing order under Section 245D(2C) of the IT Act, the Settlement Application along with annexures were forwarded to the respondent no. 2 with the directions to furnish its report within the prescribed period as per the procedure prescribed in Rule-9 of the IT Settlement (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and Rule-9 report was submitted on 16/11/2012 and rejoinder to the same was submitted by the petitioner. 7. It was contended that in the report submitted by the respondent no.2 under Rule 9, it was stated that the disclosure of the additional income of Rs.30,98,140/- made by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission is incomplete, improper, untrue and not acceptable and it may at least be assessed at Rs.40,88,71,231/-. The Settlement Commissioner accordingly vide order under Section 245D(3) of the IT Act issued on 07/11/2013 instructed the respondent No.2 to get the examination done by the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as FSL) in respect of certain documents seized from the premises of the Director of the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Jain of Mayura Group. (12 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] The respondent No.2 vide its report dated 06/12/2013 submitted that the report from FSL was unlikely to be received before the limitation for passing order under Section 245D(4) in GTPL group i.e. 31/12/2013. 8. It was further contended that the Settlement Commission by going beyond its jurisdiction and without appreciating that the Settlement and adjudication/assessment proceedings are two alternative modes of dispute resolution and the scope and process of both are fundamentally different, passed the impugned order dated 19/12/2013 under Section 245D(4) of the Act in a manner that the Settlement Applications were disposed of by the Settlement Commission by assuming role as of an Assessing/Adjudicating Officer instead of statutory role as a Settlement Commission. 9. It was further stated that from the findings of the Settlement Commission, it is prima facie evident that the Commission disbelieved the true and full disclosure and assumed the role of Assessing Officer and made an addition which is 155 times of the disclosed. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted an application for rectification under Section 164 and by way of an order dated 18/06/2014 the Settlement Commission partly accepted the application under Section 245D(6B) of the IT Act. 10. It was further contended that the impugned order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the learned Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act is without jurisdiction and suffers from vice of non-application of mind, arbitrariness and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding as Assessing Officer. The Commission completely lost sight of the maintainability criteria for the Settlement Application prescribed (13 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] under Section 245C(1) of the IT Act wherein the full and true disclosure of income by an assessee in the Settlement Application is the condition precedent/eligibility for a valid Settlement Application. Thus, when the Settlement Commission is of the view that full and true disclosure of income has not been made then the Settlement Application itself becomes non-maintainable and the same is the prerequisite for a valid Application under Section 245C(1) of the IT Act. It is also submitted that the procedure of settlement is different from the Assessment. 11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in Kakadia Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT; (2019) 4 SCC 543; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd.: 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1706; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner: (2014) 365 ITR 68 Ajmera Housing Corporation Vs. CIT: (2010)8 SCC 739; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission: 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4726; ACE Investments Ltd. Vs. Settlement Commission: 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 1100; Canara Jewellers Vs. Settlement Commission: 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2905; Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emta Coal Limited: 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13188; CIT Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.: (1994)2 SCC 374; P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of MP: (2014)11 SCC 431; CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal: (2014)14 SCC 295; Kan Singh Parihar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12983/2017), decided on 20/07/2021 by this Court; Brij Lal Vs. CIT: (2011) 1 SCC 1; Abdul Rahim Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. (WP No.14404/2018), decided by (14 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] Madras High Court vide order dated 24/08/2018 and Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.. 12. Per-contra, learned counsel for the Revenue supported the order impugned and submitted that once the petitioners have surrendered themselves before the Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission has complete and full right to additionally look into the other incomes which may not have been disclosed by them and it can also proceed to assess itself the income of the petitioners. The contention, therefore, of the petitioners has been opposed with the submission that the Settlement Commission has a jurisdiction much wider. 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar: (2011)1 SCC 1 in support of his contentions. 14. Learned counsel for the Revenue has also filed written submissions wherein it has been stated that the writ petitions should be dismissed also on account of suffering from delay, latches and acquiescence. It is stated that the writ petition has been filed on 11/07/2014 against the final order which was passed on 19/12/2013. It is further stated that the petitioner has acted upon and deposited the installments as per the directions issued by the learned Settlement Commission in the order impugned. The amount was directed to be deposited by the learned Settlement Commission in 6 installments and the petitioners moved application praying to deposit the amount in 24 installments instead. The learned Settlement Commission granted benefit and increased the installments to 15 which was accepted by the (15 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] petitioner-assessee and he acted upon accordingly. Thus, it is a case of acquiescence to the order passed by the learned Settlement Commission and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the said order before this Court after accepting the same without any demur. 15. Learned counsel for the Revenue also pointed out that by the impugned order, the petitioner was granted immunity from prosecution and penalty imposable under the Act as provided under the provisions contained under Section 245H of the Act. The petitioner and its officers have been enjoying such protection and benefit and therefore, are now estopped from challenging the order impugned. The petitioner-assessee has been accorded the benefit of not going through the regular assessment proceedings in pursuance to Section 153-A of the Act. 16. Learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that a finality is attained to the order passed by the learned Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act. He supports the submissions in terms of Section 245I of the Act. It is further submitted that the learned Settlement Commission order can be considered as void only if it is found that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The terms used in Section 245D(4) of the Act are much wider and even any other information, which the learned Settlement Commission may receive, can be taken note of while passing the order. The learned Settlement Commission has a power of assessment. He also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2010) 8 SCC 739. (16 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the material available on record as well as the judgments cited at bar. 18. The powers of settlement commission were the subject matter of examination before two Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors.: (2002) 1 SCC 633 and Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandha (supra). However, the issue raised before this Court in the present writ petitions has not been examined by the Supreme Court on both the aforesaid cases. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (supra) the question, which arose for consideration, was \"Whether the Settlement Commission constituted under Section 245B of the Act has the jurisdiction to reduce or waive the interest chargeable under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act while passing orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act\". In Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (supra), the questions re-framed by the Constitutional Bench were \"Whether Section 234B of the Act applies to the proceedings of Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act?\" and second if yes, \"What is the terminal point for levy of such interest- whether such interest should be computed up to the date of the order under Section 245D(1) or up to the date of the order of the Commission under Section 245-D(4)?\" and third \"Whether the Settlement Commission could reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking Section 154 of the said Act so as to levy interest under Section 234-B, though it was not so done in the original proceedings?\" Thus, the judgments were essentially in relation to the interest for (17 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] defaults in payments of advance tax and at what terminal point the levy of such interest can be imposed and what are the powers in granting the relief under the CBDT Circulars. The moot question, which has been essentially raised in the present writ petitions is \"Whether the Settlement Commission can proceed and pass final orders on an application moved by an assessee after finding that the concerned assessee has not truly and fully disclosed the income?\" and secondly, \"Whether it can proceed to make assessment after adding the undisclosed income and thereafter pass orders by including such non-disclosure?.\" 19. The Madras High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra), without adjudicating the issue, held that \"it is not in dispute that for entertaining an application for settlement under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, the assessee must disclose true and full income enabling the Commission to settle the issues. If any non- disclosure is identified, during the course of the proceedings, that itself is sufficient to reject the application in limine. The Commission is not empowered to proceed further as in the event of identifying non-disclosure of income, since the Assessing Officer is the Authority to proceed with the reassessment. 20. In Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:- \"27. It is clear that disclosure of \"full and true\" particulars of undisclosed income and \"the manner\" in which such income had been derived are the pre- requisites for a valid application under Section 245C(1) of the Act. Additionally, the amount of income tax payable on such undisclosed income is to be computed and mentioned in the application. It needs (18 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] little emphasis that Section 245C(1) of the Act mandates \"full and true\" disclosure of the particulars of undisclosed income and \"the manner\" in which such income was derived and, therefore, unless the Settlement Commission records its satisfaction on this aspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on the matter covered by the application. 29. Since Rules 6 and 8 of the 1987 Rules have some bearing on the issues involved, for the sake of ready reference, these are extracted below: 6. Commissioner's report etc., under Section 245C(1).-- On receipt of a settlement application, a copy of the said application (other than the Annexure and the statements and other documents accompanying such Annexure) shall be forwarded by the Commission to the Commissioner with the direction to furnish his report under Sub-section (1) of section 245D within thirty days of the receipt of the said copy of the application by him or within such further period as the Commission may specify. 8. Commissioner's further report.--Where an order is passed by the Commission under Sub-section (1) of section 245D allowing the settlement application to be proceeded with, copy of the Annexure to the said application, together with a copy of each of the statements and other documents accompanying such annexure, shall be forwarded to the Commissioner along with a copy of the said order with the direction that the Commissioner shall furnish a further report within ninety days of the receipt of the said Annexure (including the statements and other documents accompanying it or within such further period as the Commission may specify. 30. It will also be useful to extract the relevant portions of Form (No. 34B), prescribed for making an application under Section 245C(1) of the Act: [Form No. 34B] [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of cases under section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 10. Particulars of the issues to be settled, nature and circumstances of the case and complexities of the investigation involved [See Note 7] 11. Full and true disclosure of income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived and (19 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income [See Notes 9 and 10] .... Signed (Applicant) Notes: .... 7. Full details of issues for which application for settlement is made, the nature and circumstances of the case and complexities of the investigation involved must be indicated against item 10. Where the application relates to more than one assessment year, these details should be furnished for each assessment year. .... 9. The additional amount of income-tax payable on the income referred to in item 11 should be calculated in the manner laid down in Sub-sections (1A) to (1D) of Section245C. 10. The details referred to in item 11 shall be given in the Annexure to this application. (Emphasis supplied by us) 34. In our opinion even when the Settlement Commission decides to proceed with the application, it will not be denuded of its power to examine as to whether in his application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of his undisclosed income. We feel that the report(s) of the Commissioner and other documents coming on record at different stages of the consideration of the case, before or after the Settlement Commission has decided to proceed with the application would be most germane to determination of the said question. 35. It is plain from the language of Sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pass such orders as it may think fit is confined to the matters covered by the application and it can extend only to such matters which are referred to in the report of the Commissioner under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3) of the said Section. A \"full and true\" disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed by the assessee, being a pre-condition for a valid application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the application against item No. 11 of the form. Moreover, if an (20 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he would be making a fresh application in relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier application. In this regard, Section245C(3) of the Act which prohibits the withdrawal of an application once made under Sub-section (1) of the said Section is instructive in as much as it manifests that an assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedings. Therefore, by revising the application, the applicant would be achieving something indirectly what he cannot otherwise achieve directly and in the process rendering the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section245C of the Act otiose and meaningless. In our opinion, the scheme of said Chapter is clear and admits no ambiguity. 36. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See:Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.: (2000) 6 SCC 550. In interpreting a taxing statute, the Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity are entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also see:CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.: 1961 (2) SCR 189.) 39. Before addressing the other issues, at the outset, we record our disapproval with the view of the High Court that it would not be proper to set aside the proceedings before the Settlement Commission even though it was convinced that the assessee had not made full and true disclosure of their income while making application under Section 245C of the Act. As stated above, in its earlier order Dated 28th July, 2000 while declaring order Dated 17th November, 1994, as ab initio void and setting aside order Dated 29th January, 1999, the High Court had remitted the case to the Settlement Commission to decide the entire matter afresh, including the question of maintainability of the application under Section 245C(1) of the Act. The said order of the High Court was put in issue before this Court and was set aside vide order Dated 11th July, 2006 and the case was remanded back to (21 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] the High Court for fresh consideration. Nevertheless, all points raised by the parties, including the plea of the revenue that the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission was not maintainable as the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their undisclosed income were kept open. The High Court addressed itself on the said issue and found that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their income while making the application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, yet did not find it proper to set aside the proceedings on that ground. Having recorded the said adverse finding on the very basic requirement of a valid application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, the High Court's opinion that it would not be proper to set aside the proceedings is clearly erroneous. The High Court appears to have not appreciated the object and scope of the scheme of settlement under Chapter XIX- A of the Act.\" 21. The aforesaid judgments clearly show the intent of the Apex Court to mean that this Court would have to set aside the proceedings before the Settlement Commission if it reaches to a conclusion that the assessee had not made full and true disclosure of its income. However, in Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the case was different to the facts of the present case. In that case, while the assessee in his application moved under Section 245C of the Act disclosed the income which was made a basis for the decision of the Settlement Commission, in the present case, the assessee had disclosed the income which was not found to be full and true disclosure of income by the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, proceeded to make assessment and passed orders. Thus, the disclosure made by the petitioners was not accepted by the Settlement Commission. The petitioners, (22 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] therefore being aggrieved, submitted that if the Settlement Commission had not accepted the disclosure as full and true disclosure of income, it could not have proceeded further and it is their submission that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is ab-initio, void. 22. In the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to notice the observations made by the Apex Court in Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (supra) which read as under:- \"20. Under Section 245D(2A) the applicant is required to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application within 35 days of the receipt of the copy of the order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(1) allowing such application to be proceeded with. Under Section 245D(2A) the applicant shall, within 35 days of the receipt of the order under Section 245D(1) allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed. Under Section 245D(4) on compliance of Sections 245D(2A) and (2C) and on examination of relevant records and reports, the Settlement Commission may pass such orders as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the \"case\" referred to in the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 21. If one carefully analyses the provisions of Sections 245D(1) and 245D(4), one finds two distinct stages - one allowing the application to be proceeded with (or rejected) and the other of disposal of the application by appropriate orders being passed by the Settlement Commission. In between the two stages, we have provisions which require the applicant to pay the additional income tax and interest. Even under Section 245D(7) it is provided that where the settlement becomes void under Section 245D(6) the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission and (23 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] the income tax authority may complete the proceedings within the period mentioned therein. Thus, Section 245D(7) brings out the difference between Section 245D(1) stage and Section 245D(4) stage. Under Section 245D(6), it is laid down that every order under Section 245D(4) shall provide for the Terms of Settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest. 23. Descriptively, it can be stated that assessment in law is different from assessment by way of settlement. If one reads Section 245D(6) with Section 245I, it becomes clear that every order of settlement passed under Section 245D(4) shall be final and conclusive as to the matters contained therein and that the same shall not be re-opened except in the case of fraud and misrepresentation. Under Section 245F(1), in addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A, it shall also have all the powers which are vested in the income tax authority under the Act. In this connection, however, we need to keep in mind the difference between \"procedure for assessment\" under Chapter XIV and \"procedure for settlement\" under Chapter XIX-A (see Section 245D). Under Section 245F(4), it is clarified that nothing in Chapter XIX-A shall affect the operation of any other provision of the Act requiring the applicant to pay tax on the basis of self-assessment in relation to matters before the Settlement Commission. 25. Our detailed analysis shows that though Chapter XIX- A is a self-contained Code, the procedure to be followed by the Settlement Commission under Sections 245C and 245D in the matter of computation of undisclosed income; in the matter of computation of additional income tax payable on such income with interest thereon; the filing of settlement application indicating the amount of income returned in the return of income and the additional income tax payable on the undisclosed income to be aggregated as total income shows that Chapter XIX-A indicates aggregation of incomes so as to constitute total income which indicates that the special procedure under Chapter XIX-A has inbuilt mechanism of computing total income which is nothing but assessment (computation of total income). (24 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] 26.To elaborate, under Section 245C(1B), if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of his total income, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of total income returned and the income disclosed in the settlement application as if such aggregate were total income. Under the Act, tax is payable on the total income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, Section 143(3) provision is sought to be incorporated in Section 245C. When Parliament uses the words \"as if such aggregate would constitute total income\", it presupposes that under the special procedure the aggregation of the returned income plus income disclosed would result in computation of total income which is the basis for the levy of tax on the undisclosed income which is nothing but \"assessment\". Similarly, Section 245C(1C) provides for deductions from the total income computed in terms of Section 245C(1B). 27. Thus, the special procedure under Sections 245C and 245D in Chapter XIX-A shows that a special type of computation of total income is engrafted in the said provisions which is nothing but assessment which takes place at Section 245D(1) stage. However, in that computation, one finds that provisions dealing with a regular assessment, self-assessment and levy and computation of interest for default in payment of advance tax, etc. are engrafted. [See Sections 245C(1B), 245C(1C), 245D(6), 245F(3) in addition to Sections 215(3), 234A(4) and 234B(4)] (II) Terminal point for the levy of interest - Whether interest is payable under Chapter XIX-A up to the date of the order under Section 245D(1) or up to the date of the order under Section 245D(4)? 39. Moreover, as stated above, under the Act, there is a difference between assessment in law [regular assessment or assessment under Section 143(1)] and assessment by settlement under Chapter XIX-A. The order under Section 245D(4) is not an order of regular assessment. It is neither an order under Section 143(1) or 143(3) or 144. Under Sections 139 to 158, the process of assessment involves the filing of the return under Section 139 or under Section 142; inquiry by the A.O. under Sections 142 and 143 and making of the order of assessment by the A.O. under Section 143(3) or under Section 144 and issuing of (25 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] notice of demand under Section 156 on the basis of the assessment order. The making of the order of assessment is an integral part of the process of assessment. No such steps are required to be followed in the case of proceedings under Chapter XIX-A. The said Chapter contemplates the taxability determined with respect to undisclosed income only by the process of settlement/ arbitration. Thus, the nature of the orders under Sections 143(1), 143(3) and 144 is different from the orders of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4). 40. Even in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. MANU/SC/0662/2001 : 252 ITR 1 there is no finding by this Court that the order of Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) is an order of assessment under Section 143(3) or under Section 144. In Ghaswala's case the only question decided by this Court is that the interest under Section 234B is mandatory in nature and that Settlement Commission, therefore, had no authority to waive it. 41. Further, as stated above, the jurisdiction of the A.O. is not fettered merely because the applicant has filed the Settlement Application. The Act does not contemplate stay of the proceedings during that period, i.e., when the Settlement Commission is deciding whether to proceed or reject the settlement application. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to proceed commences only after an order is passed under Section 245D(1). That, after making an application for settlement the applicant is not allowed to withdraw it [see Section 245C(3)]. Once the case stands admitted, the Settlement Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Income Tax Authority. 42. The order of Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) shall be final and conclusive under Section 245I subject to two qualifications under which it can be recalled, viz., fraud and misrepresentation but even here it is important to note that under Section 245D(7) where the settlement becomes void on account of fraud and misrepresentation the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage at which the application was allowed (26 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission. This further supports our view that there are two distinct stages under Chapter XIX- A and that the Legislature has not contemplated the levy of interest between order under Section 245D(1) stage and Section 245D(4) stage. Thus, interest under Section 234B will be chargeable till the order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(1), i.e., admission of the case. 44. As stated, proceedings before Settlement Commission are similar to arbitration proceedings. It contemplates assessment by settlement and not by way of regular assessment or assessment under Section 143(1) or under Section 143(3) or under Section 144 of the Act. In that sense, it is a Code by itself. It does not begin with the filing of the return but by filing the application for settlement. As stated above, under the Act, procedure for assessment falls in Chapter XIV (in which Section 154 falls) which is different from procedure for settlement in Chapter XIX-A in which Sections 245C and 245D fall. Provision for levy of interest for default in payment of advance tax under Section 234B falls in Chapter XVII [Section F] which deals with collection and recovery of tax which as stated above is incidental to the liability to pay advance tax under Section 207 (which is also in Chapter XVII) and to the computation of total income in the manner indicated under Chapter XIX-A vide Sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C) read with the provisos to Section 245C(1) on the additional income tax payable on the undisclosed income. 45. Further, if one examines the provisions of Sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C), one finds that various situations are taken into account while computing the additional amount of tax payable, viz., if the applicant has not filed his returns, if he has filed but orders of assessment are not passed or if the proceedings are pending for re-assessment under Section 147 (again in Chapter XIV) or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such re- assessment and the applicant has not furnished his return of total income in which case tax has to be calculated on the aggregate of total income as assessed in the earlier proceedings for assessment under Section 143 or under Section 144 or under Section 147 [see Section 245C(1B)]. The point to be (27 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] noted is that in computation of additional income tax payable by the assessee, there is no mention of Section 154. On the contrary, under Section 245I the order of the Settlement Commission is made final and conclusive on matters mentioned in the application for settlement except in the two cases of fraud and misrepresentation in which case the matter could be re- opened by way of review or recall. Like ITAT, the Settlement Commission is a quasi-judicial body. Under Section 254(2), the ITAT is given the power to rectify but no such power is given to the Settlement Commission. Thus, we hold that Settlement Commission cannot reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking Section 154 of the Act.\" 23. The High Court of Bombay, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr. (supra), examined the issue. In the said case also, the Commissioner (Revenue) had submitted a report that the assessee had failed to submit true and full disclosure of income in the application moved before the Settlement Commission and actually the income was much more and it was held as under:- \"11. Sub-section 1 of Section 245C mandates that an application to the Commission to have a case settled must contain: (i) a full disclosure of the income which has not been disclosed before the assessing officer; (ii) the manner in which such income has been derived; and (iii) the additional amount of income tax payable on such income, besides such other particulars as may be prescribed. The application has to be disposed of by the Commission in the manner which is provided thereafter. The course of the proceedings which the Commission must follow, is hence provided for in the succeeding provisions. The Settlement Commission is a creature of the statute. The course of its proceedings must follow the path which the provisions of Chapter XIX A charts out. The Commission has its role and jurisdiction defined by the statute. The cases which can be brought for settlement, the jurisdiction (28 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] of the Commission and the manner in which the Commission must proceed in carriage of the cases brought before it are circumscribed by statutory provisions. All these provisions have been enacted in order to subserve the object which Parliament intended to fulfill in enacting the provisions which are conceived in the public interest. The Commission must scrupulously adhere to the statute: a body which traces its origin and jurisdiction to the statute must not transcend the limits subject to which the statute confers jurisdiction. 13. Hence, on considering the report of the Commissioner in pursuance of a direction under sub- section 2B of Section 245D, the Commission is empowered to reject an application as invalid after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Where an application has not been declared to be invalid under sub-section 2C, sub-Section 3 of Section 245D empowers the Commission to call for the records from the Commissioner. After examination of the records, if the Commission is of the opinion that any further inquiry or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the Commissioner to make or cause to be made a further inquiry or investigation and to furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case. Such a report has to be furnished by the Commissioner within ninety days of the receipt of a communication from the Commission. Next, sub-sections 4 and 6 of Section 245D are of relevance and they provide as follows: (4) After examination of the records and the report of the Commissioner, if any, received under- (i) sub-section (2B) or sub-section (3), or (ii) the provisions of sub-section (1) as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the Commissioner to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the commissioner. (5)... (29 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] (6) Every order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest, the manner in which any sum due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective and shall also provide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 14. Hence, upon examining the report which was submitted by the Commissioner under sub-section 2B or sub-section 3, the Commission may in accordance with the provisions of the Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and upon any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, referred to in the report of the Commissioner. Subsection 6 stipulates that every order passed under sub-section 4 shall provide for the terms of the settlement. The terms of settlement include any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest, the manner in which any amount due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective. The order under Sub- section 4 must provide that the settlement would be void if it is subsequently found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.\" 24. Keeping in view above, if this Court examines facts of the present case, the petitioner, who is an assessee, is coming up with the arguments that he has disclosed in his application the income which has not been accepted by the Settlement Commission and therefore, the Settlement Commission ought to have rejected the application and allowed the petitioner to take up his matter before the Assessing Officer under Section 143 or 144 of the IT Act. It is his submission that the Commission ought not have accepted the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax and proceed further. The second submission of the petitioner is that once the Settlement Commission had sent the documents for verification to the FSL, it should have waited for result of the FSL and proceed thereafter. (30 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] 25. As regards the first contention, this Court finds that the petitioner himself submitted an application stating therein true and full disclosure of his income which was found to be incorrect. A person, who himself has not come out with clean hands, cannot take the benefit of the law for his own purposes. It is noticed that the Settlement Commission, after having taken note of the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax, proceeded to assess the total income of the petitioner and has thereafter settled the income. On an application moved by the petitioner, installments were also increased from 6 to 15. The payments have already been made accordingly. 26. Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (supra), the Settlement Commission passes the order which is a complete code in itself. It is a quasi-judicial authority and there is no provision for the Settlement Commission to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. In view thereof, the contention of the petitioner solely based on the observations made in different context by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras and Bombay that the Settlement Commission should have rejected his application cannot be sustained once the Settlement Commission has reached to the conclusion that there is no full and true disclosure of income. The stage is no more available for the petitioner. 27. As observed by the Supreme Court in Brij Lal & ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (supra), the Settlement Commission has the authority to itself make assessment (Para 27 of judgment in Brij Lal & Ors. (supra)). This type of computation of total income, on a conjoint reading of Section 245C(1B), 245C(1C), 245D(6), 245F(3) in addition to (31 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] Section 215(3) and 234A(4) and 234B(4), is a special method of assessment. In other words, once the Settlement Commission has ceased with the matter and has proceeded to take on record the reports and has reached to the conclusion that additional income is required to be added to the income as purportedly submitted to be the full and true undisclosed income, the option is not available for the applicant-petitioner, who has approached the Settlement Commission, to withdraw his application and ask for assessment to be done by the regular Assessing Officer. 28. However, this Court finds that the Settlement Commission had, in-fact, directed for getting the FSL report relating to the documents, which were made a basis for adding of income to the disclosed income as submitted by the petitioner, without waiting for the result of the FSL report and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the report submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding full and true disclosure and the Settlement Commission has proceeded further with the matter and passed the impugned order. The petitioner was also not given opportunity of hearing. 29. Thus, the principles of Audi-alteram-partem, which are imbibed and inherent in the entire procedure relating to Settlement Commission which is akin to arbitration proceedings, have been violated. This Court is not convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that the petitioner is estopped to challenge the decision of the Settlement Commission after having made the requisite payments in 15 installments. There is no estoppel against the law. The Settlement Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body, is required to adhere to the principles of law in stricto sensu. (32 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] 30. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence is noticed for rejection. In cases relating to Revenue, the law of acquiescence would have no application because the orders are of mandatory nature where a person is bound to comply with the orders of the AO/Settlement Commission. If the assessee has deposited the revenue as assessed, he cannot be said to have acquiesced to the findings arrived at for computing the amount. A person would always be entitled for seeking a judicial review to such assessment. Neither the Revenue Department nor the assessee can be estopped from challenging the orders of assessment which may be passed by the AO/Commissioner or the Settlement Commission. 31. Thus at the stage when the Settlement Commission did not accept the true and correct disclosure made by the petitioner, it ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner and further, it ought to have also waited for the FSL report and should have called upon the FSL to submit its report at the earliest if the time frame for disposing of the application was expiring. Nothing prevented the Settlement Commission to do so. 32. Keeping in view above, while this Court does not accept the contention of the petitioner regarding the Settlement Commission not being empowered to make assessment, it accepts the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Commission ought to have examined the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to the true and correct disclosure and the assessment ought to have been done by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner. In this (33 of 33) [CW-8677/2014] regard, the FSL report also should have been taken into consideration. 33. In view thereof, as the entire amount of tax as directed by the Settlement Commission has already been deposited, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Settlement Commission to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh after giving fair and proper opportunity to the petitioner relating to the assessment and make reassessment accordingly after obtaining the FSL report relating to the documents. 34. Both the writ petition are accordingly partly allowed. All pending application stand disposed of. No costs. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J RAGHU/ "